# United States v. Saavedra-Velazquez

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · August 21, 2009 · 578 F.3d 1103

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9634017

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Martin SAAVEDRA-VELAZQUEZ, Defendant-Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** August 21, 2009
- **Citations:** 578 F.3d 1103; 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 18840; 2009 WL 2568689
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Reinhardt
- **Judges:** Reinhardt, Siler, McKeown
- **Cited by:** 62 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9634017

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that “we are not limited to [the plain error] standard of review when we are presented with a question that ‘is purely one of law’ and where ‘the opposing party will suffer no prejudice as a result of the failure to raise the issue in the trial court . . .’” (citation …
- holding that “whether California’s definition of ‘attempt’ is broader than the common law definition, such that attempted robbery is not a ‘crime of violence’ ” is a purely legal question to which plain error review does not apply
- stating that a “‘step toward commission of the crime’ must be ‘of such substantiality that, unless frustrated, the crime would have occurred’” (citation modified)
- declining to apply plain error review when the defendant challenged a sentencing enhancement for the first time on appeal based on the argument that a prior conviction was not, as a matter of law, an aggravated felony

## Opinion text

REINHARDT, Circuit Judge,
specially concurring:
It does not take a learned legal scholar to grasp the difference between the words “slight” and “substantial,” but it does, apparently, take members of the judiciary to equate the two terms. Such verbal gyrations are not limited to the circuit courts. The Supreme Court has, for example, construed “another state” to include the “same state,” thus giving the Eleventh Amendment a totally opposite meaning than that provided by the words themselves. 1
“Slight” and “substantial” are opposites — according to the dictionary if not the Federal Reporter. “Slight” is defined as “small in amount, degree, etc.” or “of little importance ...; trivial.” E.g., Random House Dictionary of the English Language 1340 (1979). “Substantial,” by contrast, means “of ample or considerable amount, quantity, size, etc.” or “essential, material, or important.” Id. at 1418. Today we have compared a definition of attempt that requires an act “of little importance” with a definition of attempt that requires an act that is “essential, material, or important,” and we have held that the two standards are the same. That conclusion is nonsensical. It is not our function to devalue the English language by disregarding the meaning of words.
*1111 Nevertheless, because California’s “slight acts” test appears to be indistinguishable from the test employed in Nevada, I am bound by Sarbia and therefore compelled to reach the conclusion that I and my colleagues unanimously do. My obligation to follow precedent must override both logic and my sensibilities — not for the first time and, I am sure, not for the last.
. The Eleventh Amendment reads, "The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.” U.S. Const, amend. XI (emphasis added). The Supreme Court has recently reaffirmed its view, however, that the Amendment applies to suits brought by citizens of the same state. Tenn. Student Assistance Corp. v. Hood, 541 U.S. 440, 446 , 124 S.Ct. 1905 , 158 L.Ed.2d 764 (2004) (citing, inter alia, Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1, 15 , 10 S.Ct. 504 , 33 L.Ed. 842 (1890).).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9634017. Public record. Not legal advice.